Open main menu

UESPWiki β

UESPWiki talk:Blocking Policy

First DraftEdit

Back to "real work", tackling some needed policy pages... This is what I've come up with as a first stab at a block policy. On the one hand, it tries to summarize what has generally been done in the recent past and, on the other hand, I've tried to anticipate how future vandals might try to disrupt the site and provide some preemptive advice. Of course, I'm sure there are still some cases that I've overlooked, so feedback is invited.

A large part of the page is devoted to appealing blocks. It seems that if we are going to have permanent blocks, there needs to be a mechanism to reverse those blocks, just in case we ever need it (most likely with a shared IP address, but who knows, maybe we'll even get a reformed vandal someday!). I've tried to strike a balance that makes appeals possible without enabling some users to force everyone's time to be wasted in endless appeals. My feeling is that requiring some type of demonstrated useful UESP contribution should generally separate the vandals from any real editors. I can't imagine that too many vandals would want to spend the time writing a real contribution, but it should be an easy requirement for any real editor (since that's what they want the account for in the first place).

There are a fair number of arbitrary calls that I made writing this (i.e., how long a temporary block should last). There are some bits of ideas here and there (e.g., Lurlock's suggestions in his RfA), which I've tried to incorporate here. But in general there hasn't been much previous discussion for me to use to get feedback on the community's opinions. So I'd like to emphasize that I see this as a starting point to trigger discussion; from small details to overall principles, nothing here is final. --Nephele 01:32, 9 February 2007 (EST)

One Quick ThoughtEdit

The one thing that hasn't been fixed by this page is administrator disagreements. For example, earlier today, User:Queo did a little vandalism on User:Endareth. About five hours later, I gave him a warning. Then about 2 hours after that, User:Wrye put a one month block on the account. Of course, the user in question hadn't actually edited any page in the last 6-7 hours. Now, obviously, I disagree with the long block or I would have done it myself (I did consider a shorter block). I believe that in such situations, we need to differ to the first administrator to respond to the problem. If we have an issue with how they dealt with the problem, we need to bring it up with them (or if they're not around, someone else), before taking an action. Obviously, if there were other infringements, since the first warning, this would not apply.--Ratwar 14:41, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Sorry, missed your warning on the user's talk page, and have now accordingly removed the block. I think that Nephele's block policy looks pretty reasonable. This user's vandalism was fairly minor, but his other "contributions" looked like he was just diddling around, unconcerned with affects on others. So, marginal case, but by new guidelines, warning is correct response. Nephele, you should probably edit the Blocking page's policy link to point to this page. --Wrye 15:33, 10 February 2007 (EST)
Good point, Ratwar, although I'm inclined to think that something more general about administrator disagreements should be written, perhaps on the Administrators page instead of here. It seems that anything that's applicable would really be equally relevant for any type of administrative action, not just blocking. I'll try to get to that later tonight.
And thanks for going along with new guidelines, Wrye. I agree there are a few places where links to this new page are needed; I was holding off until I at least had some feedback that it wasn't completely unacceptable. And I didn't realize that there'd be such a rash of vandals making the policy relevant so quickly ;) So more editing to get done tonight! --Nephele 22:26, 10 February 2007 (EST)
I have now added a few paragraphs at UESPWiki:Administrators#Administrative Conflicts. As always, it's open for discussion, although probably UESPWiki_Talk:Administrators is a better place for any followup on that section. And links to the blocking policy have been added to both MediaWiki:Blockedtext and MediaWiki:Blockiptext. I'll add more links if I notice other places that seem to need them (and anyone else can, too :) --Nephele 17:32, 11 February 2007 (EST)
The new admin conflicts section seems fine to me. I'm a little concerned about ending up with too many rules, but so far, additions seem pretty reasonable, and in light of December's conflicts are well warranted. I'll just note that many admin "conflicts" are "oops, my bad" conflicts and are easily resolved with a brief exchange (e.g., this one). --Wrye 15:15, 12 February 2007 (EST)
I agree, I don't want the site to end up seeming like a place where everything is regulated. I modified the intro on the Policies and Guidelines pages to try to avoid scaring new editors with the rules, and to try to explain what the general intent is behind having these policy pages. --Nephele 21:12, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Another Problem Discovered in Real time!Edit

I think that we need to cover personal abuse directed to administrators and members in general. We're all here as a public service, and personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated at any level. --Ratwar 23:36, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Another thing I think might need to be added, which is relevant to that most recent one - users who deliberately choose an offensive nickname should probably be perma-blocked. Not necessarily IP-blocked, but offensive user-names should not be allowed, even if used by legitimate editors. Granted "yourmotha" is hardly the worst offender on this count, it's still pretty clear that the person who chose that name was doing it solely to offend people, and they're not likely to become productive editors. (If they did, they'd probably choose another user-name.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 01:25, 11 February 2007 (EST)
Oh, wait, it is covered. Didn't check that. Anyhow, just a possible recommendation to turn that month-block into a perma-block in that case... --TheRealLurlock Talk 01:27, 11 February 2007 (EST)
I agree that personal abuse to this degree does warrant extra measures, although there is a bit of a subjective element to it (i.e., exactly where between Yourmotha's edit and Queo's edit do you draw the line and say it's excessive?) But when there isn't any possible misinterpretation of someone's insults, there's not much point in giving them the benefit of the doubt. So should a case like this be a one-month ban, or should it just go straight to a permanent ban (based on the edit alone, not based on the user name)?
As for the user name, a block based on user name should in theory allow the user to set up a new, non-offensive user name. So changing the primary reason for blocking to be the user name would to some extent just make things more complicated. Well, maybe not more complicated, because there's still at least one more odd twist to this case, but Aristeo seems to be investigating that issue already. I think we may need to wait and see whether Aristeo learns anything before taking any new actions with this account. --Nephele 02:59, 11 February 2007 (EST)
If we have a rule against personal abuse, then it should apply equally to admins and regular editors. For Yourmotha's edit of Nephele's page, my inclination would be to go direct to permablock.--Wrye 13:31, 11 February 2007 (EST)
I totally agree. I think the line between personal attack and vandalism is in how the edit was made. For instance, Yourmotha's edit added a substantial amount of text to a page of an active user, and the edit included Nephele's name. Queo's edit changed a small amount of text that didn't include the User's name on an inactive user' page. — Unsigned comment by Ratwar (talk • contribs)
OK, I've added some text to hopefully cover this case. Also, once I get around to finishing up and posting my notes on Etiquette, that page will cover personal attacks and abusive language more specifically, so I'll make sure to include something appropriate there. --Nephele 17:26, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Deleting WarningsEdit

Alright, yesterday, there was a situation over on User:ShakenMike, where the user deleted past warnings and a blocking notice. I gave him a warning for doing so, and I was wrong, according to the blocking policy. That was my fault for not knowing the blocking policy well enough. Still, I think that warnings and past blocking messages should remain on user talk pages, or on an easily accessible link from the talk page. On the User Talk page in question, you have to go back over 100 edits to find the relevant warnings and blocking messages, while wadding through all the other edits. This has the potential to make it nearly impossible to keep track of a long term vandal if their talk page is active. I suggest we remedy this situation by saying that all relevant warnings need to be linked directly off of the User's talk page or remain on the talk page itself. Obviously, this rule change would NOT apply to any violations that took place previously. --Ratwar 14:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see your point and agree that longterm having a place that summarizes a user's blockable offenses would be valuable.
The main problem I see is with trying to force a user to keep the information on their talk page. Even blocked users are still allowed to edit their talk page, and therefore would have the ability to delete any links added to the page. With a rule that the information has to be there, that would just force admins and editors to have to play an edit war game with a blocked user. That may be exactly what a troublemaker wants: to just keep doing anything in order to waste our time and get a reaction from us.
Also philosophically I'm not sure about having a big ugly warning message be the first thing that is shown on the top of a user's main page or talk page, at least in the case of an editor who is not actively blocked. If the editor is currently allowed to edit the site, I don't know that having their past offenses blatantly advertised to every other editor who visits the page is the right thing to do. Yes, admins need to know the info (just like police need to be able to pull up anyone's criminal record), but it shouldn't be the first thing that any editor learns (people aren't forced to announce their criminal record every time they introduce themselves to someone). On the other hand, I think we've only ever had two editors who have made non-vandalism contributions after being blocked once, so it's not exactly a common situation that warrants a lot of attention or concern.
It seems like having a warning subpage such as User talk:ShakenMike/warnings is a workable solution. In other words, continue to initially post any warnings and/or blocked messages on the standard user talk page, just as we do right now. But if the messages are deleted at any point, create a warning subpage as a permanent record. If there are any problems with the user modifying the subpage, the page could be protected so only admins can alter it. The remaining problem is how to make the page accessible... a link on the user talk page could be deleted, starting an edit war. Should we just know to always check whether a warning subpage exists? --Nephele 14:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Given that he's a questionable character, bordering on trollish, I think that other editors need to be able to discover that rapidly, so that they can find out where to go and/or just ignore the guy. Talk page doesn't work because that's alwasy editable even for a blocked user. User subpage doesn't work because it's too obscure. So I think that best solution is the one I just did -- put warning on user page, then protect it -- but on the protected user page do an inclusion of a subpage which is not protected. Granted a warning on top of the talk page is a little loud, but it's warranted in this case. And in practice, I think that what will happen is that other editors will find themselves irritated at something he's done, go to his user page find the warning, and then either 1) think "Oh good, it's known. I'll just ignore him." and/or 2) go to complaint area on admin board and post. If other editors know there's a process and where to go, I think that will settle things out a bit and the rest of us can get back to work. --Wrye 15:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Update: Perhaps drama with that user is over (he just asked to be blocked, so I did), but possibly we might need to do something like this in the future with another user. --Wrye 15:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Yep, the protected-user-page-with-inclusion solution seems like a pretty good one. And I see your points about other editors visiting his page to find out about him, and that it's probably useful for other editors to see that they're not the only ones getting irritated and to get some advice on what to do. Hopefully we won't have to do this again, but we should still keep track of the useful solutions just in case ;) --Nephele 16:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wrye, that was (and still is) a great idea. It solves all my concerns. --Ratwar 21:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Tecnically, I probably should have moved his user page to the subpage (so that it would have all of the history), and then edited the new re-direct page to have the warning and include. Just a note for next time, I guess... --Wrye 22:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
It's an excellent idea, I remember thinking about this problem last night, bravo. So do we to vote to make it policy? -- Chaos Monkey Talk 23:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
We're not quite so formal unless we need to be. Nephele is the policy writing gal. When/as she has time she'll add it to the guideline, and then we'll have a chance to comment. However, we've essentially already skipped to that step (all yay's no nea's). So I think that we already informally consider it to be policy. --Wrye 01:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Account Creation + Anonymous OnlyEdit

What are the general guidelines for using these options when blocking? I didn't see it stated definitively anywhere what settings we're supposed to use when blocking people. I've generally allowed account creation and disallowed anonymous editors only when blocking an IP, on the chance that somebody may be using a school computer or another IP shared by multiple users. These are not the default settings for either option, and I've noticed looking at the block-log that other admins are not generally following the same practice. (Ratwar seems to be doing the same as me, but nobody else.) Just want to be sure I'm doing these right. --TheRealLurlock Talk 10:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The default options are no check next to "Block anonymous users only" and a check next to "Prevent account creation". According to wikipedia these options have no effect on username blocks, except that they will affect any IPs that are autoblocked by a username (i.e., if UserX is blocked, then any time UserX tries to use the account the IP address used by UserX is temporarily blocked, I believe for 24 hours).
I've generally been leaving those options at the default values, which seems to be what's implied by wikipedia's policy. The only time I've been unchecking the "prevent account creation" box is when blocking someone for choosing an inappropriate username, since the point is to allow the person to create a more appropriately named account. Although I see your point with the anonymous IP options, we haven't had any cases yet of multiple people using the same anonymous IP, and so it seems to me that using non-default options means that someone who's been blocked can immediately circumvent the block if they want to. I figured that if someone ever asked to use a blocked IP address we'd change the options on that IP so an account could be created. But I'd be open to any alternative guidelines that we want to come up with. --Nephele 10:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia is somewhat different in this respect, as they actively encourage users to create accounts rather than edit from anonymous IPs. (I made maybe 2 minor edits to Wikipedia before I created an account, and was automatically greeted with a message saying I should create one.) We don't have a similar system in place, and thus I think have a greater percentage of editors who use anonymous IPs rather than creating accounts. My original question is in response to these specifically, since most of the blocks I've given out have been to IP editors rather than usernames. So should the policy be to leave the options at default for username-blocks and to change them both like I've been doing for IP-blocks? --TheRealLurlock Talk 10:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User Page WarningsEdit

Moved to Community Portal since the actual focus here is on the warning on Aristeo's page, and most previous discussion regarding Aristeo has been on the Community Portal. --Wrye 00:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Another Policy AdditionEdit

I know Nephele is working on a new version of this at the moment but here's something else I want to throw into the discussion. I propose that any IP address making even one vandalism edit may be blocked IF it is also identified as an open proxy on Wikipedia or another reputable site. I'm sure you've all seen the idiotic edits made by one particular individual recently? These have now started to come through open proxies. The trouble is that although it's pretty clear it's the same child, there's not enough proof (in my opinion) to go for a block under the existing policy. Open proxies are, in any case, not the sort of thing we want to allow onto the site and I don't think we'll be losing anything important. (For one particular example, look at the recent edit to my talk page and then at the Wikipedia page for that IP. I know this can never be a 100% solution but anything that makes it more difficult for this idiot has got to be a good thing. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 17:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Good point. At one point when we were having a rash of problems associated with open proxies, I did go through and block a large number of IPs identified as open proxies by wikipedia (see Proxy Vandalism). So I'd support a change to make it possible to block any new open proxies as they come to attention for whatever reason (e.g., because someone uses the proxy to vandalize the site).
On the other hand, it's only going to get us so far. This person's latest edit came from 69.94.124.137, which does not seem to be on wikipedia's open proxy list (based on user talk pages at en.wikipedia.org, simple.wikipedia.org, Wikipedia's open proxy list, or Wikimedia's list). Although an IP lookup says that the name is proxy.sneakbuddy.com, and that the name is probably forged because proxy.sneakbuddy.com does not exist (and I'm not inclined to trust anything associated with sneakbuddy.com). So do we also say that IPs coming from known proxy providers should get blocked? --NepheleTalk 18:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)
I think we can trust our collective judgment here. I see no reason why known proxies or strong suspects shouldn't be blocked as long as the admin responsible places a clear reason in the block notice on the talk page. If it turns out to be a mistake, we can always unblock after all. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 05:51, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Spamming QuestionsEdit

Just out of curiosity (and partly desire for help), what do you do with spammers? Do you just ban them infinitely? For instance, people posting up articles on ads. We (The admins) do this a lot on the GHWiki, and I'd like to know the policies of other wiki's, so I can feel safe in not being overly draconian in the matter. (No, I'm not a terribly great admin, I just have too much time and effort) Humbly, Erathoniel 23:47, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

We ban and then leave a message on the talk page about it, so if a legit user ever does use that IP address, they will be able to ask us to unblock them. The Official forums have a similar policy. Don't feel bad about banning bots... They don't have feelongs... Yet.--Ratwar 02:56, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Of course, a little preventative action can go a long way against spammers. We have a Captcha plug-in on the site that forces you to prove you're human if you try to put an external link onto an article. Adding that reduced the spam influx to pretty much zero. (People can still put spam on manually, but most don't bother - spam is generally done by bots.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 10:25, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I should ask JH about that. Dunno if our spam is from bots or people, though, since we get only one article per spammer almost every time. It's also been known to occur in Simplified Chinese. Erathoniel 16:36, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Are you sure it's only one per spammer? Keep in mind that many spambots make a regular habit of changing their IPs and/or usernames (if any) between every post. So the fact that they don't look like the same poster doesn't mean that they aren't. And the fact that they're posting in Chinese tends to make it even more clear that it's not a human posting them (unless other legit parts of your site are in Chinese as well, which I'm guessing is not the case). Any person coming to the site and seeing that it's not written in Chinese would not be wasting their time posting spam in Chinese, because almost nobody who visits the site would be able to read it. Thus it's more than likely it's not a person doing it but a bot gone haywire. --TheRealLurlock Talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

PiracyEdit

Hey, I was looking around, and while it is certainly an offense worth of blocking here, there's nothing in writing saying that "Piracy is bad, and you will get banned if you look like you are condoning it." Would this be the appropriate place to put this, or would it be better placed somewhere else? Tim Talk 21:05, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Open ProxiesEdit

I've added a blurb to the page about immediate permanent blocks on open proxies. Since we've been doing it for a while, since it's standard wikipedia policy, and since we've had a few discussions about it in the past (for example, here and here), I just went ahead and added the information right away. However, if anyone does have any objections, or suggestions for modifications, feel free to discuss them here. --NepheleTalk 10:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think that's a useful addition, not least because we seem to have attracted a few more obvious proxy edits recently. Thanks. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps a silly question...Edit

To put it bluntly, how come that user 81.159.148.249 can still be editing articles while I have given him a block? Have I done something wrong? I do think a (permanent) block is necessary with this user, although I might be wrong. Any feedback would be appreciated. Wolok gro-Barok 10:36, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

Simply posting a Block message on a talk page won't block the IP. You need an Admin to block that IP in the Block Log; so unless an Admin springs up, we'll just have to keep on reverting. --SerCenKing Talk 12:15, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
Okay, thanks! Wolok gro-Barok 12:29, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
Blocked by rpeh. --Wrye 02:58, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

LinkEdit

However, all editors are advised to simply ignore any comments posted by a blocked user that are likely intended to bait a discussion; i.e., "Do not feed the trolls".

The link links to a soft redirect, where you click on the troll article, get to the essay part, and find the part titled: "dont feed the trolls". Anyone want to fix that? Im not sure how, sorry :-( (Low priority)--Catmaniac66 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've linked past the soft redirect, but I didn't link to the specific section, as that's more likely to change names (and the section link jumped incorrectly on Chrome, but that's secondary). – Robin Hood↝talk 01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hah, love the edit conflict! I was typing a message that it still wasnt linked perfectly, but that I was ok with it, and you were already explaining it! Im fine with it the way it is, thank you!--Catmaniac66 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. – Robin Hood↝talk 03:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Policy ChangesEdit

With the recent IP address clashes causing confusion, this seems like a good time to look at doing a bit of a revamp on our current blocking policy. I'm not going to suggest specific language for policy changes at the moment: rather, I'm trying to set out my ideas and see what level of support there is.

First, let's have some stats on indefinite blocks. These figures are accurate as of 30 April 2011.

Most of the IP blocks were made ages ago when Nephele went through the Wikipedia list of open proxies and blocked them all. That's fair enough, but it makes the assumption "Once an open proxy, always an open proxy". Having checked a few of these out, it's clear that this is not the case. That means that we're blocking editors from several hundred IP addresses from making edits to the site, and in many cases, even posting on their talk page to ask for an unblock. So here's suggestion #1:

1. The maximum length of time for which an IP address should be generally be blocked is one year.

However, there are lots of sites out there with permanent addresses that are designed to act as web proxies - sites like HideMyAss and ProxyTools. When found, these should be blocked, but we have got to record why on the talk page, including the name of the web proxy. Talk page access should always be left for indefinitely blocked IPs. If talk page access is abused, the IP should be reblocked without talk page access but with a shorter block duration.

2. Where exceptions are made and IPs are blocked indefinitely, the precise reason why must be clearly included in the block message. Talk page access may never be revoked for indefinitely blocked IP addresses.

If these changes are implemented, I suggest a one-off amnesty for all blocked IPs: i.e, we unblock all of them and start afresh. In some cases, we'll want to re-apply blocks almost immediately to deal with known web proxies such as the ones named above.

3. An amnesty to be given to all IPs that are currently indefinitely blocked, except for known web proxies.
Your first point is fair enough, IPs are dynamic enough that permanent blocks will inevitably see someone who actually wishes to help out get blocked. However I can't really support your second point about never revoking talk page privileges, especially for bad vandals who wish to continue fighting in the last place they can. Is it possible to only block talk page access temporarily? If so then I believe that we should still take away talk page access for troublesome IPs for only short periods of time, with the hope that they will get bored of fighting and give up. To address your final point I would support an amnesty as long as we can compile a list of web proxies, and purposely exclude them from amnesty so they don't get a second to attempt to vandalize. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I need to explain the block settings for those who don't get to see 'em. Talk page access can be removed, but it's part of the wider block so we can't block an IP for a year but only take talk page access for a week: if we block for a year, the talk page access is removed for a year. My point is that we have to give people a chance to make an enquiry in case an IP changes. Under the policy I'm suggesting, we can block and revoke talk page access for a fixed period, but never do both indefinitely. That means we can have indefinite blocks whilst leaving talk page access open, or time-limited blocks with talk page access revoked. Named accounts can be indef blocked and also have talk access revoked as at present. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

MessagesEdit

Our warning and block messages could be much better. The warnings need to be clear that they only apply to the editor who made certain edits, with links to encourage other users to create an account. Block messages should include the block length so it's easier to tell when an account is no longer blocked. Additionally, we should start to use categories to group things together: when the block was made, what the block was made for, and so on. At the moment, trying to dig up information on previous attacks on the site is really difficult unless you know which pages were affected and can dig around in the edit history.

4. Block messages to include block length, plus categories for month and reason of block.

Okay... that wasn't as long as I thought it was going to be. I could have sworn there was more I was going to suggest. Anyway - there's some suggestions: let's talk. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully support tweaking our messages in light of recent problems, I think the categories may be a bit of a hassle. But that is mainly because I hardly ever use categories. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuing the thought bouncing of the Administrator NoticeboardEdit

Just adding to strategy talk, on IPs, blocking, and causes for blocks (some of it already discussed above):

I figured dynamic IPs were understood, especially by the experienced users and admins, but I think blocking full ranges of IPs would just be more problematic, because some honest editors might get caught in the range, if the net access points were close enough to the same communications trunk line or ISP (internet service provider) junction. The use of sock puppets however, would probably be easier to track down, mainly because it takes more time to create accounts than to do an anonymous edit. For obscenities built into user creation logs, a simple filter system could work, excluding any possibility of known obscenities. This is implemented elsewhere on other sites, but those require a reference list for filter comparison.

About blocking the aforementioned IPs on the previous page, I merely requested a temporary block to my IP at the time, to see if I could work around it by waiting for my IP to change. I just wanted to test if I could circumvent the blocking system naturally. If I could, then blocking single IPs would be useless, and this would require a policy change for the site. (perhaps blocks and notices that self-delete after 4 hours or so, presumably the time it would take to have the IP renew itself)

To stop sock puppets, I suggest making account creation less user-friendly. If E-mail verification was a requirement, it would effectively double the time required to create an array of puppets. There are already tests in place to stop automated profile creation on this site, so why not add E-mail as a requirement, to slow repeated profile creation? Users who spam, and have identical E-mail addresses would be considered the same person, so any user with the E-mail account would be blocked. This avoids the dynamic IP problem. Users would need to create additional E-mail addresses to work around a blocked one.

To stop garbage edits, a filter system could be added to the edit system, preventing certain words or alphanumeric combos from being saved, giving an error message, and an explanation. Only certain markups or functions could accidentally have a censored key word, and they can be reworded in my experience. If we were to get ambitious, and choose to automatically erase the vulgar edits, could a "bot" be made to hunt for key words? I'm not sure the level of programming involved, but looking at the tasks of active bots, hunting for problems, repeatedly, seems to be thier only purpose in life. This could handle existing vulgarities, by churning out a list for a human editor to change.

For the existing vulgar user creation logs, only a Superuser/Host, Mr. Humphrey, could legally hack his own system and permanently erase the logs, so this is an unfavourable option, not to mention extremely time-consuming. There's not much any one person can do to fix that.

These ideas probably have been mentioned elsewhere, but they are the only true solutions I could imagine for our existing issues. IPs can easily change, so we can choose to ignore them when issues arise. Filters would be a major pain to create, but can run on simple comparisons, so should be (relatively) easy to add. Current blocking is inefficient, but other than plugging the gaps that allow spam and vulgarities, I'm all out of ideas. - Neural Tempest 18:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of... not even a molehill - more a patch of flat ground! The fact is that we just don't get serious vandalism problems on UESP. Sure, there have been occasional bouts of annoying edits, but the fact that we have fewer than 2000 indefinite blocks is incredible given how long the site has been in operation. We absolutely do not need to have email registration for accounts. Edit filters cause more problems than they're worth - read up on the Scunthorpe Problem - and the idea of a bot going around deleting edits fills me with horror.
If somebody wants to hurt UESP, they'll find a way of doing it no matter what systems are put in place to stop them. Suggestions like the ones above will hurt legitimate users far, far more than vandals. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur, we really don't have that much of a problem with vandalism. Sure it might help if we had more Blockusers as we currently have only one active blocker, and it can take a while for admins to deal with vandals sometimes. But besides that it isn't really that hard taking care of the vandals as they usually give up after being warned. In fact I'll just say that none of your suggestions are really necessary, if it isn't broken don't fix it. Our existing vandalism counter measures are pretty much up to par with the levels of vandalism we receive, anything more will only hurt actual editors. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I was only suggesting answers to the commonly reported problems, namely dynamic IPs, and since there were complaints of vandals, I just laid out all my ideas on the table. I don't actually beleive it's all completely necessary at this point, with only 5 vandal incidents per day at most. They are just the possible resolutions. The only suggestion that truly needs consideration now is the self-deleting warnings for IPs, seeing as vandals get the message, then desist, while other editors can get a false notification. Blocking of IPs is the issue being discussed, and I was just saying that blocking one is of little use, at least in the long term. Perma-blocks could only work for repeat vandals with identical IPs for long durations. I only suggested the other possibilities in response to the complaints. My other suggestions are of little importance at the moment, but could become relevant if there is a vandalism/nonsense spike with Skyrim's launch. But seeing as a few vulgarities or false links are the worst we get, my more radical solutions should be put at the bottom of the list, for desperate times. I thought the ideas could have some relevance, but as I said, are merely possibilities. And I did state that filters and similar things would be an extreme pain to implement, didn't I? No problem, you can remove as much as you see fit, I don't mind. - Neural Tempest 01:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Slight change of wording proposalEdit

"An editor that personally attacks any member of the community will immediately be permanently blocked."

I don't know the last time this was enforced, but it seems common practice to warn a user/IP that attacks another user/IP. I propose that we change it to:

"An editor that personally attacks any member of the community is liable to be immediately blocked."

It doesn't exclude immediate blocks, but it reflects common practice. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:16, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

I have no objection to that, but if possible, I'd change it to something that reflects the warn/block scenario. Off-hand, though, I can't think of a wording that isn't cumbersome. – Robin Hood  (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2013 (GMT)
Retrieved from "https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Blocking_Policy&oldid=1271466"
Return to the project page "Blocking Policy".